Rockets

@Earl Aelfheah honestly. What I am clearly saying is that the promised-land of ten-fold increase in cycling that TFL and the Mayor used to secure hundreds of millions of pounds (remember this was based on TFL's own modelling so one presumes for the Mayor and Will Norman to use it they must have thought it was attainable) of tax-payers money for Streetspace has not materialised. Not even close - we are struggling to get to a one-fold increase. Even giving a politician a healthy slice of "they sometimes say things they get wrong" that ten-fold increase was clearly TFL modelling nonsense. Cycling stage growth decline. The clue is in my sentences (which are very clear to most people) about it - let me repost it in the hope you read it this time.....notice how growth goes from 18% - to 6.3% and then 5%.....that's a decline in growth isn't it? Or are you going to continue the habit of a lifetime and argue it is now. Now it's back up to 12.7% so it's not unreasonable to ask what the trigger for the increase in growth as it is a sizeable jump wouldn't you agree? (I doubt you will but it's worth a try at least...;-)) But until this year cycle stage growth was in decline in the preceding years: in 21/22 it was 18%, in 22/23 it was 6.3% in 23/24 down to 5% and then in 24/25 back up to 12.7%.

For us it was via the Met police online reporting portal.

Hmmm, you might want to do some fact checking....fear not I did it for you. The ten-fold increase was the headline stat when TFL and the Mayor created their StreetSpace strategy during Covid. Streetspace replaced Healthy Streets (cynics may say that after years of struggling to get support and consultation greenlight for their OHS plans they took the emergency powers they were given during Covid to roll-out measures without the need for consultation). The ten-fold increase was, apparently, based on TFL modelling. Here is the link to the press release they put out at the time: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayors-bold-plan-will-overhaul-capitals-streets?fbclid=IwdGRjcAOleDhjbGNrA6V4H2V4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHnjF6_KNVYD87w51L1CY3cxDmYTY7vuJ-W5EkVv-Dy0q2Lv8Bb8145EFPl9O_aem_tH55yqGGzEhBy4g5u7h3Fg Mayor’s bold new Streetspace plan will overhaul London’s streets Transformation of London’s roads to be fast-tracked, giving space to new cycle lanes and wider pavements to enable social distancing Landmark locations to benefit from temporary bike routes and more space for walking to reduce pressure on Tube and buses Clean, green and sustainable travel to be at the heart of London’s recovery Cycling could increase 10-fold and walking five-fold post-lockdown This was jumped on by the pro-cycling media usual suspects and Will Norman even wrote op eds quoting the ten-fold increase. https://bikebiz.com/mayors-streetspace-plan-could-see-cycling-increased-tenfold-post-lockdown/ @Earl Aelfheah your preceding post is getting embarrassing now such is your frantic desire to try and land a punch. Sorry to break it to you but you keep missing: in 2023 cycling growth HAD stalled - it was declining so that statement was absolutely 100% correct. How that is proving me wrong is anyone's guess but maybe it further exposes some of the desperate tactics used to try an attack some of us. And now to rescue the conversation from the grudge-match war of words some are waging: @exdulwicher you still haven't explained why a sudden increase may be reported by TFL - any ideas? What was it that caused cycling stage growth to jump by so much after a couple of years of decline? Are you saying TFL may be collecting the data differently or has changed their methodology to give the big jump - if that was the case surely some sort of explanation would be required especially given that that was the headline stat used by most of the media? I just don't see a sudden switch from 5% growth in cycle stages to 12.7% without some significant catalyst behind it - is it a massive increase in Lime bike usage or something like that?

I have consistently said a decline in growth....which it is exactly what it is....which can also be referred to as a slowing in growth if you prefer....deary, deary me.... Ha ha....still some way to go to get to the 10x increase promised during the lobbying for funds phase during Covid though....we are seemingly at .43x after 6 years.... @DulvilleRes what, in your mind, have I been proved wrong about exactly? Is what I say about the data and information in TFL's report wrong? No it isn't. Do you have an opinion on the catalysts for the big jump in cycle stage growth this last year - or are you just here to try and attack a fellow poster? I do find it laughable that you suggest I am pushing propaganda when asking questions about TFL's report....

But until this year cycle stage growth was in decline in the preceding years: in 21/22 it was 18%, in 22/23 it was 6.3% in 23/24 down to 5% and then in 24/25 back up to 12.7%. I don't think infrastructure is irrelevant - but it just doesn't explain the over doubling of cycle stage growth in the last year.

But does that explain the massive sudden annual jump from 5% to 12.7% - I believe (and it's hard to tell as TFL has changed their reporting methodology over the years) that could be a bigger % jump in growth than even during and post-Covid? Would you not expect that if it was infrastructure then growth would be gradual rather than an overnight jump? This year massively bucked the year-on-year decline in cycle-stage growth. Anyone else got any other ideas?

oh @Earl Aelfheah..........deary, deary me....you're on a roll today aren't you 😉

@Penguin68 this is why I am interested in the opinions of others - this thread is about the headline stats which look good and have been repurposed as such by the OP but it is interesting that TFL's report, and subsequent headlines, always leans in on cycling - it is as if it is the only mode that matters - as if that is the only thing TFL and the Mayor really cares about - and seemingly the challenges of hitting their own walking targets suggest this may well be the case. A more than doubling of cycle stage growth hasn't just come out of nowhere (especially after repeated years of growth decline) and I am interested to see what people think is the catalyst for this - I am not buying the infrastructure message - that seems more like grandstanding and I am surprised TFL has not backed-up their claims with more detail on where the growth is coming from. @Earl Aelfheah you must stop jumping to such negative conclusions. I am not downplaying the data just asking if people know what is driving the large jump this year (after years of decline in cycling growth). Is that a question I am not allowed to ask? I would suggest that anyone who had read the TFL report (and not just the headlines from TFL's press release) would probably ask the same questions I am as there are clear contradictions within it - do you have any explanation?

@Earl Aelfheah do you cycle much at night....? I think anyone who does can recognise the situations I describe.

@Earl Aelfheah do you even know the point you are trying to make anymore? You can pluck quotes that I made over the years and as I explained - it was very much in context TFL data at the time of the post - you cannot deny that - look at what TFL said in their own annual reports - the facts are there in black and white - I am afraid you seem to be falling into old habits again - wildly swinging to try and land a punch but missing by a country mile. What I think is interesting is you seem far keener to dig out quotes from years ago (all of which were 100% correct when posted) to try to make a point rather than share your thoughts on why this year TFL's report claims a significant increase in cycle stages after years of stagnation and declines in the growth number yet the same report suggests Londoners are cycling less. I remind you in 23-24 report cycle stage growth was down year-on-year to 5% yet this year up to 12.7%. Any ideas - let's see if you can keep the thread on track? Meanwhile it is interesting that the London Assembly called a number of experts to their transport committee in September to try to understand why - despite TFL's Walkability Plan - there had been no growth in walking numbers in London since 2019 (and for context walking is by far the biggest modal share of any transport type in London) and TFL was repeatedly 800,000 journeys short of it's own targets....and do you know the one thing cited as a reason for the challenges - the growth of micromobility - people are taking e-bikes and e-scooters to do perfectly walk-able journeys. Fascinating watch particularly the chap from the University of Westminster (Rachel Aldred's crew) who was on the panel and was squirming a bit when asked and he said all active travel is considered good in their mind when challenged on whether micromobility and cluttering was causing the stagnation in walking....https://webcasts.london.gov.uk/Assembly/Event/Index/1a7a64bf-3f4b-4ea2-99fc-4ff3725d477a

Oh @Earl Aelfheah you're at it again. You're using a quote from two years ago massively out of context. Check your facts: in 2023 cycling growth had stalled - in fact between 2022-2023-2024 the rate of growth (according to TFL's estimates) declined year-on-year. This year TFL figures say growth (based on their estimates) more than doubled year-on-year from 5% in 23/24 to 12.7% in 24/25 - the first increase in three reports (since 2021/22 report) - they give no reason for this headline grabbing growth just that is due to the Mayor's and TFL's investment in infrastructure. Interestingly the very same report concludes that the proportion of London householders who cycled actually decreased from 23% to 22%. https://board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/s25367/board-20251203-item08b-Appendix 1 travel-in-london-2025-report.pdf Can anyone suggest what has led to the sudden massive jump in cycling growth in the last year whilst TFL's own report suggests Londoners are cycling less than the year before? That is how much has been estimated to have been invested in cycle infrastructure since 2019 in London. In what context - do you mean the number of cycled stages - the wording needs to be very careful here? TFL actually says in their report that the number of cycle stages (stages is important as it is not cyclists but cycled stages - a stage is a Lime bike to a station or a delivery bike journey to a delivery) is equivalent to the number of people who board Northern and Piccadilly line trains daily. Context and the methodology for the collation of these figures is very important - they are designed to create good headlines for TFL and some media lap it up. Perhaps a more indicative and telling stat is that the trip-based mode share for cycling in London is 4.7% - but that one doesn't make such a good headline and is buried in the depths of the full TFL report!

Not necessarily and I agree with @Penguin68 - as a cyclist myself I am particularly cautious at junctions at night as the glare from headlights can mean even the most brightly dressed cyclist can be lost in the glare wash - especially with some of the new super bright LEDs and if you are passing queuing traffic. Headlights can create blind spots. As much as you would like to you can't pin everything on driving without due care and attention. Any sensible driver or cyclist will understand the challenges and drive and cycle accordingly. I would also challenge you on well-lit city streets - the streets around here are not very well lit at all - it's one of the reasons I have a pulsing front light because other road users will see that long before they see me. Like @Angelina I see people cycling at night with no lights and think - are you crazy? It's actually quite amazing how many people do and I just don't understand it.

Our camera caught two folks doing this. One of them led me to believe the delivery driver was in on it as he left the package in a very odd place that the thief (who arrived about 10 minutes after from a direction where he could not have seen where the driver left it) went straight to it and took it - but he then dumped it halfway down the next road as clearly packets of freeze-dried food for a DofE award wasn't to his liking (karma sucks!). The second time a guy pulled his bike up in broad daylight, walked down to our door, opened the box, threw the empty box down and stuffed what he had found in his backpack and brazenly waved at the camera and then cycled off. Police asked us to upload his picture but we never heard anything back.

It is interesting that many in the Netherlands are worried that there are a generation of youngsters/teenagers who are getting much less exercise due to the popularity of e-bikes. Now, of course, in the UK the starting position is very different as most are not brought up cycling the in the way the Dutch are but I do wonder how many Lime bike journeys (which I am sure make up a huge number of the 43% increase) are actually replacing walking - a net active travel loss if so. If our kids are indicative they are beyond lazy and if they see a Lime bike will jump on it no matter how walkable the journey actually is - this may also be linked to their parents paying rather than them of course! I don't know about you but I did read the TFL headline and thought - is that all and I was shocked how low it was - there are times when I cycle where it feels much more but that does tend to be on cycling arterial routes so maybe it is the funnelling effect?

But not particularly well lit are they?

Yes, of course it is. Do you think the growth is aligned with the spend of £800m in cycling infrastructure in London and promises of a 10x increase in cycling numbers made by those spending the money? Seems a lot of money for not a great return when considering the impact on other transport modes. Yes or no.

@march46 I think the key point you are missing is that people are saying that the commonsense approach is to make sure you do everything so those heavy, large vehicles that have the capacity to cause injury and death can see you. Is that something you don't subscribe to? Making yourself seen is one of the most basic road safety principles - it's why so many vehicles have day running lights now.

@Spartacus yes we do live in strange times where people will scream: "don't tell me what to do" even when people are trying to pass on very sensible advice.... What I really don't understand is the mindset some seem to have of "well if you can't see me that's your fault not mine - you're clearly not paying enough attention". That's a very foolhardy and dangerous precedent to set and one that in the ideal world some live in may work well but in the real world may not work out well at all, I don't know about anyone else but when I cycle I want to give every other road user the best chance of seeing me - that goes for cars and lorries as much it does for pedestrians and other cyclists (particularly those on faster moving e-bikes). No-one needs to tell me to do it - it seems like the most basic of commonsense.

Did anyone actually say that? I don't think they did. I think they said that, even whilst being supportive of the need for safer cycling infrastructure, that at some point you have to look at the ROI - as @first mate says Sydenham Hill is just one massive spend that does not come close to passing the ROI test -a huge chunk of tax-payers money sitting idle most of the time. Since 2019 there has been roughly £800m spent on cycling infrastructure in London and I am not sure a 43% increase is showing that that has delivered what was promised - remember around Covid when Will Norman was lobbying for £ and said that there could be a 10x increase in cycling? The latest numbers basically means that for every two cyclists in 2019 there are now three - good progress but hardly earth shattering - they haven't even got to a 0.5x increase yet. What is also interesting is that in the very same report TFL that cites the 43% increase in cycling it says that buses are getting slower and slower averaging 9.2 miles per hour in London - (slower than they were in the preceding years - pre- and post-Covid yet on a background of lower overall traffic levels that pre-Covid) and there has been criticism of the way TFL and the Major have carved up bus lanes in certain parts of London to install cycle infrastructure - much of these to the detriment to bus journey times. Since the high point in 2014/15 the number of bus journeys taken is a whopping 22.8% lower and year on year saw a decline of another 1.5% (only DLR and Trams were the others that saw a decrease in numbers).

But, if for example, you were walking down a dark country lane with no pavement would you advise wearing brighter colours to ensure you were as visible as possible? I don't think anyone is trying to tell people what to do just that commonsense suggests wearing brighter colours to make yourself as visible as possible. I mean, this was the whole point of the thread was it not?

Are you referring to the different paving near the chicane - the bit that looks like it could have been a pedestrian crossing?

Oh my.....FIFA.....still managing to embarrass themselves. Absolutely. Well said.

But @exdulwicher just look at your first response to Angelina's post. Now you accuse others of posting anti-cycling tirades yet Angelina's post was a statement about selfish, irresponsible and dangerous cycling and your response was very pro-cycling, or certainly anti anything negative being said about cyclists don't you think? There is an almost cultish response to anything that could be deemed critical of cycling from a lot of folks on here. There does seem to be some Pavlovian trigger for many on the obsessional pro-cycling side to launch attacks when they see anything that could be construed as anti-cycling. We see it all the time - let's be honest you didn't need to wade in as you did and that set the tone for the rest of the thread and then there was a pile-on from the usual suspects. Let's be clear, we all know there are selfish, irresponsible and dangerous drivers but Angelina's post was about cyclists yet you, and others, want to conclude that the issue is drivers. A lot of pro-cycling lobbyists love nothing more than to claim there is a culture war being waged against them but a lot of the time the culture war is actually being waged by them. I really don't buy this "restrictions" nonsense. It is something that is used as an out by the leaders of the cycle lobby for every and any measure that is suggested - often even those things that will actually keep cyclists safer (which is one of the things that many cite as the reason not to cycle). You have more faith in drivers than I do - I always wear a high-vis jacket! And bar a ludicrous left-turn cut-up move done by a driver on Battersea Park roundabout it has stood me in good stead all these years! Yes take his advice - wear "high contrast clothing" and "always wear a helmet".....perhaps some folks might listen to him! 😉

Hang on a minute @exdulwicher to be fair, you may be critical now but just look at your post in response to Angelina's first post on the issue where they commented on the number of cyclists at night without lights or bright clothing dangerously weaving in and out of traffic - yours was the first reply to Angelina's post on this thread. You seem to have taken quite a dismissive stance and then the usual suspects jumped on with the "you don't have to wear bright coloured clothes". So it's bit rich for you, some pages later, to be critical - you set the tone from the outset. Why did you feel compelled to take such a dismissive stance? Also, are you not going a bit Dulwich Roads with your picture of the smashed up police car? Are you sure it was hit by an unobservant driver or are you just jumping to that conclusion? You claim I am on some anti-cyclist tirade yet I am a cyclist - does that upset you? Are cyclists supposed to be fully paid-up members of the cultish elements of the sport for their opinions to be considered? Trust me, there are a lot of cyclists, like me, who do not like how the more cultish members of our sports behave or engage with others and who don't agree with the cycle-myopic view of the world and think that is actually doing long-term harm to the active travel transition. And I really don't see how suggesting it is commonsense to wear bright coloured clothing when cycling is an anti-cycling tirade - it sounds like perfectly reasonable advice!

Mal hasn't been deleted. Mal is getting better at self-policing and, I suspect, posted something that, in hindsight, they decided wasn't advisable and they deleted it themselves. And that is the point - making yourself as visible as possible is not a requirement or a law but seems like a perfectly sensible idea to make it easier for other road users to see you. I really could not work out why this perfectly sensible suggestion was so vehemently opposed by some - there seems to be a lot of "how dare you tell us what to do" amongst many mixed with a "the obligation is for other roads users to see us no matter what the circumstances". It seems like a very blinkered and ultimately quite daft approach.